Looks that AirAsiaX KUL-STN is doing OK while Oasis HKG-LON flight looked like it that didn't stand a chance to survive.
What could have been the major differences between AirAsiaX and Oasis approach to their LON flights?
What did Oasis do wrong? Would the route have been profitable with a COMBI instead?

And it helps that AirAsiaX has the financial muscle behind it, to absorb losses - and that it's aircraft are more suitable. An A330-300X, particularly with a nine abreast layout, makes far better sense than a 744.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 1):The answer lies in the fact that AirAsia has a huge hub at KUL unlike Oasis which offered no onward connections

No that is not the answer.

As Kaitak said, Air Asia have the financial backing that is deeper than what Oasis ever had. When cashflow issues became a problem it instantly crippled Oasis and it does with many other start-ups. Air Asia not only have a brand presence as well, but have the expertise to ensure that the economics of long haul services always remain optimal.

Oasis was a well organised setup with decent financial backing, but even they couldnt sustain lost making flights whilst keeping all the overheads going.

Not sure if/how Oasis did it, but AirAsiaX takes loads of cargo on their Europe-Asia(-onward) flights, all arranged by a single sales agency located in the Netherlands. They make good money with the cargo on these flights.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 4):
Quoting MAS777 (Reply 1):
The answer lies in the fact that AirAsia has a huge hub at KUL unlike Oasis which offered no onward connections

No that is not the answer.

AirAsia X's CEO stated, such as at the 2008 World Low Cost Congress, that its services would not be viable but for the feed provided by other AirAsia X services and those by AirAsia itself. Indeed, AirAsia X now offers official connections, e.g. from STN via KUL to MEL, PER, DPS, CGK, MES, CHC, SIN, and BKK. Therefore, feed is certainly an essential component - but only one of many.

"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 6):i thought 3-4-3 on the AF 77W was bad enough, then you imagine an 11 hour flight on A330 with 3-3-3 seating. Might as well call it AirSardine X

Unlike AF, Air Asia X is a low-cost carrier and you can expect a 3-3-3 seating. It's not much different than the charter carriers which also have this seating configuration. Also let's not forget that EK and EY have now 10 abreast on the 777. Probably it's just luck that EK and EY have not equipped their A332 planes with the 9 abreast seating.

However I heard that the "C class" of Air Asia X is quite good for the price you pay. You get an angled lie-flat seat and economy catering for the price of premium economy on other airlines. The only thing annoying is, that they fly from Stansted which is far far away from London. I think Oasis flew from LGW if I am not mistaken. Not sure though.

Another point to be aware of is that there is little non-stop competition on KUL-LON , just MH , while the HKG-LON market has multiple daily flights from both CX and BA as well as 3 other airlines QF , NZ and VS each with daily ( or near daily ) services .

Quoting kaitak (Reply 2):And it helps that AirAsiaX has the financial muscle behind it, to absorb losses - and that it's aircraft are more suitable. An A330-300X, particularly with a nine abreast layout, makes far better sense than a 744

Don't mean to be pedantic, but D7 uses two A340-300s on KUL-STN and will also use it on KUL-ORY (reducing frequency to STN). These two aircraft are originally from Air Canada, and for the first year kept the original AC seats (which were very comfortable, and had a 33-34" seat pitch in Y). They have since put in the same seats as on their A330-300s and changed fron 8 to 9 across. However the A340 at least has a 32" seat pitch which was more than acceptable on my last flight with them. I have wondered whether AirAsia X would benefit from A330-200 HGWs which could fly this route and would be much better suited to KUL-CHC for example.

The flights seem to be mostly full, but I assume yields are very low. The strange thing with AirAsia X is that unless they have a sale on, they are not much cheaper than other airlines to KUL or SIN. However their sales are smokin' hot, I have twice travelled STN-KUL-STN for under £300 including meals and baggage charges.

The hub at KUL is the key - I don't think this route could survive without it. Now that AirAsia X offers online connections to AUS and NZ the route should continue to do fairly well.

Please don't comment "that's torture" on the seating layout unless you have actually flown them. I am 6'4" and about 215 lbs, and have flown quite a few airlines LON-Asia. AirAsia X are far from the least comfortable. I find AirAsia X's A340s and A340s more comfortable for long haul travel than BA's 744 with crappy seat pitch in Y. Qantas also has a very tight seat pitch. But the biggest difference - the service! So much more friendly and attentive. When you press the call bell, a f/a is there within 30 seconds and with a smile on his/her face. I haven't seen another airline that can match that.

Quoting LAX888 (Reply 8):The only thing annoying is, that they fly from Stansted which is far far away from London. I think Oasis flew from LGW if I am not mistaken. Not sure though.

This must be one of the most popular myths floating around. I agree STN is further from Central London then LGW (only 5 miles mind!) but connections at the airport are very good to be able to get into the city, coach and train times are very frequent (and with new rolling stock arriving on the railway this year the ride will be even better ;-P).

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 10):Don't mean to be pedantic, but D7 uses two A340-300s on KUL-STN and will also use it on KUL-ORY (reducing frequency to STN).

Are there any plans of getting a 3rd aircraft for european routes? D7 are currently operating nearly twice daily flights to STN. Do you think the loads are to high to reduce a service?

Quoting trent900 (Reply 11):Are there any plans of getting a 3rd aircraft for european routes? D7 are currently operating nearly twice daily flights to STN. Do you think the loads are to high to reduce a service?

Not that I'm aware of, which is why I find it surprising that they haven't changed some of the A333 orders to A332s. The STN-KUL route will reduce to 6x weekly after KUL-ORY launches. The new schedule is a bit confusing as the flight times ex STN are variable, 0930, 1700 and 2300. I am also a bit concerned that they will become more vulnerable to delays as they are really going to be pushing the A343s hard to keep both STN and ORY served.

Air Asia X was initially reliant on a wet-leased Air Mauritius A343 (which I flew once KUL-STN), and I wonder if they will need to take up this arrangement again.

Interestingly, Sir Richard Branson is a shareholder in AirAsia X - I wonder if they might find a use for a couple of VS A343s when VS start receiving their own A333s.

As for seat width / pitch - I'll take pitch any day over width. I'm happy to pay extra not to get a middle seat.

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 13):Air Asia X was initially reliant on a wet-leased Air Mauritius A343 (which I flew once KUL-STN), and I wonder if they will need to take up this arrangement again.

I dont think they were reliant, rather, they chartered the Air Mauritius aircraft to cover down time of their A333 and A343, the MK birds turned up all over the network, it was regularly in perth i remember.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 12):so if something has a known defect, i STILL have to go try it out first out and suffer the outcome in order to confirm what most people have said all along ?

I think the point is, while on paper the D7 seats may appear to have a flaw, its actually not that bad once you are onboard. I've flown D7 on 3 occasions, and the seats and leg room were fine. I was nervous and thought the flights would be horrible, but they were fine, and that was with their old black seats, i've yet to experience the new seats that recline, which i've been told are much more comfortable. I think that the saying of dont judge a book by its cover is what CPDC10-30 was getting at. As for most people, the a.net community is different to the world at large, and most people who book with AirAsia probably do not know the difference and just think that the seats are acceptable, and thats why D7 can get away with it, because people who never travel dont know any better.

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 10):Please don't comment "that's torture" on the seating layout unless you have actually flown them. I am 6'4" and about 215 lbs, and have flown quite a few airlines LON-Asia.

I don't have to get into a car wreck to know I don't want to.

Also, when Oasis stopped, I believe the CEO said that they were not losing money yet, but given the conditions at the time, they would start losing money quickly (high oil prices / financial crisis). Either way, it would be nearly impossible to maintain an airline with just one route, and no subsidies.

Oasis had high costs. They were not a low cost airline at all. CX's CEO called them a 'low profit' airline. They operated from one of the most expensive airports in Asia, paid decent salaries to employees, paid high fuel prices (since they had not been around long enough to hedge at low prices). They also had no regional network and no agreements with regional airlines to feed traffic to their longhaul network. I would imagine that LGW costs were higher than those that AirAsiaX pay at STN as well.

I can't imagine AirAsiaX pays salaries anywhere near to as much as Oasis were paying to their staff (many of whom were based in Hong Kong). Oasis poached staff from CX and KA....you have to pay a lot to do that sort of thing, and many pilots were from CX and BA...also not cheap to do.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 12):heck, i won't pay for a flat-bed if it's only 16" wide - it'll be so tight i'll feel like i'm in a space capsule or a coffin

the lie flight beds aren't 3-3-3 they are done in a 2-4-2 config so the same seat width as a 'normal' 2-4-2 config in Y A330/340. Actually looks very comfy and the upgrade price is very reasonable. You get the same cabin service as economy, you're paying just to upgrade a bit more space.
Back in economy the config is 3-3-3 so no worse than long-haul charter carriers or this aircraft.
Now that AirAsia X offers onward connections with baggage check-thru at their KUL LCC hub I think it's a very smart move that will only boost popularity.

As for STN - it isn't that hard to reach from London. It has a direct connection to the motorway network and a direct express train service right into Liverpool St Station which is within the City of London itself. For the rest of the UK there are direct train connections available and goof connections via the motorway. I would say STN is a better choice than LGW since LGW is only easy to get to if you are travelling from London or the SE whereas STN is just as easy to reach by road/rail from London and the S.East but as STN is on the north side of the capital it's so much easier to get to from the north and midlands.

What would be clever of AirAsia would be to arrange an interline agreement with an LCC for onward connections to/from STN. I'm not thinking FR as i can't ever see that working but perhaps likes of U2 or even BE (if they opened a base at STN).

Please don't shoot me, if I am repeating something that has already been said, as only had a chance to glance over the thread...

The A340-300's have indeed been refurbished with the new 3-3-3 seating across, but this really isn't as bad as people like to make out on here!

I use to be one of these people that moaned like crazy about it too, until I experienced it... I flew Air Transat on one of their A310's from MAN-YYZ and the seat width difference was hardly any difference. It is the width of the aisles that has been reduced slightly to accommodate the extra the seat.

I have forgotten his name, but the Air Asia X CEO has a blog he regularly posts on, boasting the newly refurbished seats on the aircraft and lots of people commented to him that the seats and how the width had been reduced on the seats. He promised the seat width had only been reduced by half an inch, and if this is the case that is 1.25cm and is negligible.

Plus if you want to travel low cost, or atleast with a low cost carrier (as they are not always that cheap on the LON-KUL route). Be prepared to sacrifice certain areas of your travel experience!

--------------------------------------------------

From what I understand Oasis HK collapsed because of the fuel prices at the time, as they were at nearly $150 dollars per barrel. This was a time also the credit crunch was beginning to hit and investors withdrew funding to the airline that was clearly required for a start up carrier.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 7):AirAsia X's CEO stated, such as at the 2008 World Low Cost Congress, that its services would not be viable but for the feed provided by other AirAsia X services and those by AirAsia itself.

Yes it most certainly is a part, but not the main reason between the failure of Oasis.

Quoting hz747300 (Reply 15):Also, when Oasis stopped, I believe the CEO said that they were not losing money yet, but given the conditions at the time, they would start losing money quickly (high oil prices / financial crisis).

Quoting spud757 (Reply 17):the lie flight beds aren't 3-3-3 they are done in a 2-4-2 config so the same seat width as a 'normal' 2-4-2 config in Y A330/340.

The Lie Flat beds are 2-2-2, not 2-4-2

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 18):He promised the seat width had only been reduced by half an inch, and if this is the case that is 1.25cm and is negligible.

I've read this as well, I was trying to search the blogs to find the source so i could post it here, but i cant find it. But the new 3-3-3 seats are 16.5in wide, where as most traditional arlines offer 17in so the new reclinable seats are not much different to others such as the seats on a 737 etc...